You are on page 1of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Nifty Home Products, Inc.

Plaintiff, Civil No. _______________________ v. Brumis Imports Inc. d/b/a CoreBamboo.com Defendant

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Nifty Home Products, Inc. (“Nifty”), for its Complaint against Defendant Brumis Imports Inc. d/b/a CoreBamboo.com (“Brumis”) states and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. 2. Plaintiff Nifty is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of Defendant Brumis, on information and belief, is a New York corporation JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. 285. 4. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter over Nifty’s federal This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Brumis, as Brumis has claims by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and (b). engaged in acts of patent infringement in the United States and in the District of Minnesota. Specifically, Brumis has purposely and intentionally subjected itself to the This is a claim for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281business in Madison Lake, MN. Nifty designs and sells a variety of kitchen accessories. doing business in Staten Island, NY.

1

privileges of doing business in the State of Minnesota by placing its goods in the stream of commerce with the intent that they would be sold in Minnesota. Brumis has offered for sale and sold products in the State of Minnesota which infringe certain design patents owned by Nifty. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b), as Brumis has committed acts of infringement in this district. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 6. On or about January 5, 2006, Frank Tiemann filed an application for a design patent on a Single Cup Beverage Container Holder. On or about February 20, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly granted U.S. Design Patent No. D536,936 (“the ‘936 Patent”) to Mr. Tiemann. Mr. Tiemann assigned the ‘936 Patent to Nifty. A copy of the ‘936 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint. 7. On or about March 10, 2009, Mr. Tiemann filed an application for a design patent on a Coffee Pod Carousel. On or about February 9, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly granted U.S. Design Patent D609,533 (“the ‘533 Patent”) to Mr. Tiemann. Mr. Tiemann has assigned the ‘533 Patent to Nifty. A copy of the ‘533 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Complaint. COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘936 PATENT 8. 9. The allegations of Paragraphs 1-7 of the Complaint are realleged and Brumis has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘936 Patent by offering incorporated herein by reference. for sale and selling in the United States and within this judicial district and importing into the United States, without authorization, its Coffee Capsule Tree on a lazy susan bottom that is substantially the same as the design illustrated in the ‘936 Patent. The resemblance between the patented Nifty Single Cup Beverage Container Holder and the Brumis Coffee Capsule Tree is such to permit an ordinary observer to purchase the unauthorized Coffee Capsule Tree, supposing it to the be the patented Single Cup Beverage Container Holder. 10. Brumis’ actions have caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Nifty unless enjoined.
2

COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘533 PATENT 11. 12. The allegations of Paragraphs 1-10 of this Complaint are realleged and Brumis has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘533 Patent by offering incorporated herein by reference. for sale and selling in the United States including this judicial district and importing into the United States, without authorization, its Coffee Capsule Tree on a lazy susan bottom that is substantially the same design as the design illustrated and described in the ‘533 Patent. The resemblance between the patented Nifty Coffee Pod Carousel and the Brumis Coffee Capsule Tree is such as to permit an ordinary observer to purchase the unauthorized Coffee Capsule Tree, supposing it to be the patented Coffee Pod Carousel. 13. Brumis’ actions have caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Nifty unless enjoined. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nifty prays for judgment as follows: (a) (b) In favor of Nifty Home Products, Inc. and against Brumis Imports Inc. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining Brumis and its d/b/a CoreBamboo.com on all counts of this Complaint; officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all others acting under and through them from directly infringing or inducing others to infringe U.S. Design Patent Nos. D536,936 and D609,533; (c) (d) (e) Awarding Nifty damages under Title 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289, including Awarding Nifty reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses and interest Awarding Nifty such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Brumis’ profits; pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and any other applicable law; and

3

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Date: February 10, 2012 /s/Peter G. Nikolai Peter G. Nikolai (#322,052) James T. Nikolai (#144,101) NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU, P.A 900 Second Avenue South, Suite 820 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-7461 Facsimile: (612) 349-6556 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF NIFTY HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

4